Introduction to Literary Theories and Criticisms (Enla 422), 2011

• 
  Classical period (ancient Greek criticism),
  
• 
  Medieval (from the fall of Rome through the fourteenth or fifteenth century),
  
• 
  Renaissance (from its earliest beginnings in Italy in the fourteenth century through the sixteenth century elsewhere in Europe, with a shift in some countries to "Baroque" in its last phase),
  
• 
  The Neoclassical (starting in the mid-seventeenth century, with its subsequent eighteenth-century development as the "Age of Enlightenment"),
  
• 
  The Romantic period (beginning in the last decades of the eighteenth century and continuing at least through the middle of the nineteenth),
  
• 
  The Realist movement and its late nineteenth century extension into "naturalism", and
  
• 
  And finally, the Modern Period, which has been given many names, all of them, so far, provisional.
  

According to Habib, the first recorded instances of criticism go back to dramatic festivals organized as contests in ancient Athens requiring an official judgment as to which author had produced the best drama. A particularly striking literary-critical discussion occurs in Aristophanes’ play The Frogs, first performed in 405 BC, just before the ending of the Peloponnesian War in 404 BC in the utter defeat of Athens at the hands of its rival, Sparta. This is not merely a contest between two literary theories, representing older and younger generations; it is rather a contest in poetic art. The judge of course will be Dionysus, who they considered as the patron god of drama. During the then contest, Aeschylus represents the more traditional virtues of olden generation, such as martial expertise, heroism, and respect for social hierarchy – all embodied in patronizing, modest, and sublime style of speech – while Euripides is the voice of a more recent, democratic, secular, and plain-speaking generation.

Firstly, Aeschylus cautions that “we, the poets, are teachers of men” and that the “sacred poet” should avoid depicting any kind of evil, especially the harlotry and incest that we can find in Euripides (Frogs, l. 1055). Euripides agrees that in general the poet is valued for his “ready wit” and wise counsels, and because he trains the citizens to be “better townsmen and worthier men” (Frogs, l. 1009). But he claims that, in contrast with Aeschylus, he himself employs a “democratic” manner, allowing characters from all classes to speak, showing “scenes of common life,” and teaching the public to reason (Frogs, ll. 952, 959, 971–978). Thus, he insists that the poet should speak in “human fashion,” and accuses Aeschylus of using language that is verbose, obscure, and repetitious (Frogs, ll. 839, 1122, 1179). Aeschylus rejoins that a high style and lofty speech is appropriate for “mighty thoughts and heroic aims” (Frogs, ll. 1058–1060); and he upbraids Euripides for teaching the youth of the city to “prate, to harangue, to debate . . . to challenge, discuss, and refute,” as well as bringing to the stage dishonesty and “scandal” (Frogs, ll. 1070–1073). Finally, Dionysus pronounces as victor Aeschylus in whom his “soul delights” (Frogs, ll. 1465–1467). It is clear that Aristophanes’ play both embodies and enacts the civic duty of poetry and literary criticism.

There were three historical events that facilitate the development of literary criticism in particular and literature in general. The first was the evolution of the polis or city-state. Even the internal structure of drama was influenced by the ideal of the polis: the chorus (whether comprised of a group of dancers and singers, or a single speaking character) was the representative of the community or polis. Poetry had a primary role in education: children were taught letters for the purpose of memorizing poetry and ultimately of performing and interpreting it (CHLC, V.I, 74). In the ancient Greek world, poetry not only had a public nature but also served several functions which have been displaced in our world by news media, film, music, religious education, and the sciences. The second was the war of Peloponnesian between the Athens (democratic) and the Sparta (Oligarchy) which lasted for 27 years beginning in 431 BC. The name of the war recited the other major power in the Greek world -Sparta, who counterbalanced Athens’ leadership of the Delian League with her own system of defensive alliances known as the Peloponnesian League. The first twenty-four years of Plato’s life were lived during this war, and the issues raised by the conflict affected many areas of his thought, including his literary theory.

A third factor that shaped the evolution of literature in archaic and classical Greece was pan-Hellenism, or the development of certain literary ideals and standards among the elites of the various city-states of Greece (CHLC, V.I, 22). Gregory Nagy, as cited in Habib 2005, points out that pan-Hellenism was crucial in the process of the continuous modification and diffusion of the Homeric poems and of poetry generally. According to Nagy, then, pan-Hellenism had a number of important consequences. Firstly, it provided a context in which poetry was no longer merely an expression or ritual reenactment of local myths. A second consequence of pan-Hellenism, furthering the process of standardization, was the evolution of a certain group or “canon” of texts into the status of classics (CHLC, V.I, 44). The third, related, consequence was the development of the concept of imitation or mimesis into a “concept of authority.” Mimesis designates “the re-enactment, through ritual, of the events of myth” by the poet; it also designates “the present re-enacting of previous re-enactments,” as in the performer’s subsequent imitation of the poet. Mimesis becomes an authoritative concept inasmuch as the author speaks with the authority of myth which is accepted as not local but universal, timeless, and unchanging.

And then Plato and Aristotle, who are both obliged to consider literature as a public or state concern, come. Plato’s most systematic comments on poetry occur in two texts, separated by several years. The first is Ion, where Socrates cross-examines a rhapsode or singer on the nature of his art and the second was the Republic. The Muse inspires the poet, who in turn passes on this inspiration to the rhapsode, who produces an inspired emotional effect on the spectators (Ion, 534c–e). To Socrates, the Muse is the magnet or loadstone; the poet is the first ring, the rhapsode is the middle ring, and the audience the last one (Ion, 533a, 536a–b). In this way, the poet conveys and interprets the utterances of the gods, and the rhapsode interprets the poets. Hence, the rhapsodes are “interpreters of interpreters” (Ion, 535a).

The poet, insists Socrates, is “a light and winged thing, and holy, and never able to compose until he has become inspired, and is beside himself, and reason is no longer in him” (Ion, 534b). Not only poetry, according to Socrates, but even criticism is irrational and inspired. Hence, in this early dialogue, composed several years before the Republic, Plato has already sharply separated the provinces of poetry and philosophy; the former has its very basis in a divorce from reason, which is the realm of philosophy; poetry in its very nature is steeped in emotional transport and lack of self-possession. Having said this, Plato in this earlier dialogue accords poetry a certain reverence: he speaks of the poet as “holy,” and as divinely inspired.

In the Republic, Socrates’ inquiry is finally arrived at through a complex strategy whereby (1) Poetry is held to be the repository of received popular wisdom concerning justice;